Ted Hoffman

GDon, you cannot cite "spot the mythicist" for support since the article and the specific arguments you refer to have been rebutted by Doherty. Since Doherty's refutation was met by silence from you, your arguments remain rebutted and therefore are inapplicable until you respond to the rebuttals.

GakuseiDon

Earl, I appreciate your patience and the time you've spent on this thread. I've enjoyed this debate very much, and only planned to withdraw because Krosero had done some excellent analysis which I felt you needed to address and I didn't want to dilute your time.

However, your point that we need to 'make our own points on the board' is a valid one. I'd like to lay out in as complete a form as possible my view on what M Felix is saying, so that people on the side-lines can compare with your own.

I'll start by making a few comments on your post, and then go on to present my own summary.

First, I'll note that I agree with a lot of the points that you raised. But I think you drift a little by using 'crucified man' and 'wicked man' as well as 'Christ as man' and 'Christ as god' as synonyms.
The only comment that I make here is that Felix regarded the idea of worshipping someone who was wicked as reprehensible, not crucified. It is a distinction that I've made all along, and it isn't something that I'd like to lose sight of here. To me, that makes all the difference, as I'll explain in my summary. But for now, I'll note that accusations by pagans of Christ being wicked can be found in Celsus and Pionius.

I think that Andrew Criddle answered that. It is because Felix did indeed see it in the same light: worshipping genitals, slaughtering of an infant, incestuous banquets, worshipping a wicked man and his cross.

Perhaps if Earl had examples of other writers being critical of Felix on this point, or others making similar points, then that would provide evidence. But even a heresiologist like Tertullian himself, whom Earl himself says borrowed or was inspired by Felix, didn't pick up on this point.

Earl claims that this was due to a 'veiled ambiguity', but the nature of an ambiguity is that things CAN be read another way. Ambiguities can be resolved by examining similar sentiments in the writings of other writers. And since there are examples by other writers that support an orthodox view (which I will give below), I honestly don't see how Earl has a leg to stand on in this point.

All that Earl can really claim here is that Felix shouldn't have done it that way. But this would come down to his opinion. How can you show that 'if he really held orthodox views on the crucified man, he wouldn't have inserted it among the others'? You can't. If the view itself is compatible with orthodoxy, then it is only a critique of Felix's style, not content. If the view ISN'T compatible with orthodoxy, then it should have been picked up by heresiologists. If the view is ambiguous, then it can't be very strong proof.

So, why didn't he, one way or the other? As even Earl has to admit, Felix is saying "We don't worship a criminal" and "We don't worship a mortal man". As I've said all along, even at the very least, Felix's statements are not incompatible to orthodox Christianity.

Nor can Earl show that these statements are unorthodox. All he is left with is that Felix "makes no clear statements to that effect, something he could easily have done". But again, this is Earl's opinion. There is no evidence that any Christians following Felix had any problems with this passage.

So, the passage's meaning "is there on the surface, in plain sight, fully understandable". The stronger that Earl puts his case on how plain the meaning is, the weirder it becomes that it is missed by those following him.

Again, the distinction: it is worshipping someone who was wicked or just a man.

As TedM pointed out, Felix actually says that pagans' banners even had the form of a cross with a man on them - and this expressed in positive, or at least naturalistic, terms:

For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with handsoutstretched.

I think Doherty puts this down to coincidence, but it is a damn interesting one!

I think that I've shown that this isn't the case. Felix doesn't make any statement that is non-orthodox. All Earl can show is that Felix should have expressed himself in clearer terms if he was orthodox - but surely the same accusation can be reversed. I think that we've agreed that Felix was aware of Christians who worshipped a crucified man whom they regarded as a god.

Yes, this is a fair point.

Is this a serious point? Felix himself gives the reason: because the Eyptian man himself knows that he isn't a god. Earl even says that in his comments above. The man ain't a god!

Compare this with those Christians who DID regard Christ as a good man who was somehow crucified (even Spartacus was admired by the Romans) and who was regarded as a god. Felix, who we agreed knew about these Christians, somehow doesn't appear to address them.

If you look at Earl's point above, he seems to be implying that Christians worshipped someone who was just a man. I'll repeat one of Earl's comments above:

If he is critical of the practice for the Egyptians [for worshipping a man] and condemns it, then he must be condemning it for the crucified man.

But any orthodox Christian didn't think that Christ was just a man, so wouldn't have been a problem for any Christian. Felix's comment makes perfect sense if he believed in a man who was really God.

As I noted above, Felix clearly makes the point that the man that the Egyptian chooses isn't a god, and knows it. It rules out that Felix thought that anyone who was a mortal man should be worshipped. But how is that unorthodox? It isn't. Earl is confusing the idea of 'Christ as man' and 'Christ as god' again.

Keep in mind that I'm claiming that Felix was writing at a time when pagans had some idea that Christ was a man who was crucified, and was regarded as a god by the Christians (which I'll discuss in my summary).

I think writing off the reference to "a good man" in the midst of accusations against the pagans as "simply a coincidence" is a bit adhoc. I suggest that it isn't coincidence, but I agree that I can't prove it. These positive comments on 'giving love to a good man' and the natural form of the cross are interesting 'against the grain' examples being used by Felix.

Yes, I agree, that needs to be done. But I'll do it in my next post. This one has already gone on longer than I had expected!

Well, I don't! I think it means exactly as it says. I suggest that it is Earl who is twisting the meaning here.

The charge is that Christians actually worship real crosses. In other words, Christians are charged with adoring actual crosses, and not the sign of the cross. (Andrew Criddle notes that Pionius writes that the pagans charged Christ with using the cross for purposes of black magic).

Note the pagan charges involve the use of actual crosses (that is, the ones used to crucify criminals):

"... he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve..."

"Lo, for you there are threats, punishments, tortures, and crosses; and that no longer as objects of adoration, but as tortures to be undergone..."

Octavius denies the use of actual crosses by Christians:

"For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross..."

Finally: "Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for."

Felix goes on to clearly defend the naturalness of the shape of the cross by comparing the it to "when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched", an absurd notion if the passage had the meaning Earl is trying to assign to it, as he does here:Note that Earl says that it is an example of the "natural occurrence of the cross sign". I agree! And compare this with the actual charges: that Christians worship and adore actual crosses.

Why on earth is Felix even TRYING to claim that the sign of the cross has a natural occurence? Is it just another coincidence? I think that the evidence doesn't support it.

I think this is an excellent suggestion. I also urge others to contribute, on either side.

In my next post, I'll lay out what I believe Felix is saying. I'll pull in examples from other writers of the period also. It's late here, so I may not be able to finish it for a day or so.

GakuseiDon

Oh! I didn't know that rule. OK, sorry about that.

krosero

Mr. Doherty, this is illegitimate. I can't engage you in your challenge until you've responded to what I said was the final form of my disproof, in post #134. You were engaging my posts right through my second disproof, but you stopped short of the final form. Why? It was hardly identical to previous versions, so I was not just nattering on. I even said to you how my final disproof was directly related to what you wrote about the "blanket condemnation" passage. I said to you moreover that it was short, which it is, so you cannot say that I was just filling it up with words, or with speculations and mistranslations and all the other things you've referred to. Here you've given us a challenge which you present as logical and closed within the text, which my last disproof surely is (only it's shorter than your last challenge). How can you ask me to cut to your challenge when you have not addressed mine?

Moreover, since you've asked us for a response which is logical and simple, I will not accept a response to my final disproof which talks vaguely about the inadequacy of my style of argument. It must be what you have asked of us: it must be a specific pointing out of which of the points in my disproof fails to hold up. I presented my disproof as a step-by-step argument ("an equation" put up on a blackboard by a professor, to use your analogy). Just please show which steps fails, and why that failure makes the rest of the argument impossible (without merely stating that my arguments are built on false premises and leaving it at that).

Don't get me wrong: I WANT to respond to your challenge. The central point of what will be my response is ready. But first things first. If you don't respond to my disproof, I will conclude that you ignored or dodged it in order to replace it with what you regard as your ownly nearly proved argument. I would not fault any of the bystanders you mentioned for concluding the same. You can't just cut past an opponent's arguments by pronouncing your opinion that you think the debate is spinning its wheels, and that your opponents are just repeatedly speculating and not saying anything worth responding to any longer. That just comes off as so much personal opinion: especially when you say that your opinion is "plain to all." My last disproof, in its shortness and form, was a perfect response to your opinion that we were writing too much and not focusing enough. Yet you didn't respond to it. Why?

None of this, incidentally, is to say that I'm 100% sure about my disproof. That would be foolish. But it's vital to hear where you specifically think it's at fault.

krosero

"Have been rebutted by Doherty" is an opinion, certainly not one that I share. I agree with Don that whatever rule is being invoked here, it's certainly invalid. Is it the "rule" that whoever gives the final word in a debate has given the better arguments?

That's a rhetorical question. Obviously, the specific arguments in Don's article can still have value and can still be referred to it despite the fact that other articles out there disagree with those arguments.

krosero

My last point, for now, is that like Don says, this is fine as far as it goes. But it does not apply to our debate here. I may have written things about Felix that are taken to be speculative (I wrote them because it's vital to understand what Felix may have known, in order to understand his statements), but I have not said anything speculative about the professor (meaning Doherty), certainly not on the level of saying that the professor's equation is invalid because of what he eats and wears. Nor have I really even called in the arguments of "another professor." I've referred to another model, but I can't recall ever quoting another specific historicist author (and if I did, it would be perfectly legitimate, so I don't know what is meant by the comment about the invalidity of bringing in what another professor wrote). I say that what you've written here is a straw man that does not apply to my arguments or the arguments of anyone here.

Amaleq13

I have to admit that, after reading the rebuttals offered by your worthy opponents, I was ready to accept that MF's odd statement is, at best, ambiguous enough that your interpretation is "possible" but that it is more likely he was closer to "orthodoxy" than you suggest. But then I read your Big Three Points and number 2 seems extremely problematic for their position and none of the explanations offered so far seem to me to be adequate.

Every accusation to which Felix responds is treated as unequivocally and utterly false. From an orthodox position, however, the accusation about worshipping crosses and crucified criminals is not unequivocally and utterly false but a misunderstanding of actual beliefs. In other words, it belongs in an entirely different category of error and is entirely inappropriate for placement in the middle of the rest! None of the others is presented as a misunderstanding of actual practices and, in fact, neither is the crucified criminal response but that is how we are expected to read it according to their defense. We are to interpret Felix at face value for all his other rebuttals but our understanding must become suddenly more nuanced and subtle with regard to this one example in the middle of the list.

That, to me, is an example of apologetic rationalization and, while their arguments had succeeded in getting me to ignore this point, they do not appear to adequately address it. Of the three, this seems to me the most problematic for their position.

The placement of the accusation with the others is contrary to and the response to the accusation is wholly inadequate for an orthodox position.

But isn't it because the man was crucified that Felix concludes he was wicked? It seems to me that he is clearly and unapologetically connecting crucifixion and the wickedness of the victim. IOW, Felix appears to be assuming that every victim of crucifixion was wicked. That cannot be considered compatible with orthodox Christian views.

But this misses the point that they aren't the same from an "orthodox" viewpoint!!! The first three are completely false while the latter is a misunderstanding of the truth. From an orthodox viewpoint, Felix's opponents have not wandered "a long way from the truth". They have simply misunderstood the central Christian belief. Rather than declare they are just as misguided as with the other charges, Felix should be explaining that, contrary to appearances, the crucifixion victim at the center of Christianity was not guilty of anything. He was innocent and his innocence is CENTRAL to the salvific power of his sacrifice!!!

I think this is a wild goose chase because there is no reason to assume early Christians would be less willing to read orthodox beliefs into Felix as they are today.

All the claims are completely denied as totally false (eg "fable") but, from an orthodox view, that is not true of the accusation of worshipping a criminal.

The guilt of all crucified victims is assumed unapologetically despite the fact that central to orthodox beliefs is the notion that Christ was innocent of any wickedness.

It seems to me he is arguing that one can honor the sign/shape of the cross without any connection to its use as a means of executing wicked men. Again, this is hardly an approach one would expect from an orthodox position.

Felix distances himself from the notion that the symbol of the cross must be connected to crucifixion.

Felix distances himself from the notion that any crucifixion victim is worthy of worship.

As a result, Felix has distanced himself from the central tenet of orthodox Christianity:

Christ was crucified but his innocence of any sin is what gave his sacrifice salvific power.

EarlDoherty

But is this really a distinction? The pagans could have regarded Christ as “wicked� only because he was crucified. What other grounds would they have? They could hardly have been familiar with any alleged incident in his life that would indicate he was a wicked man. The Gospels don’t supply one, unless it be the general picture that he was a revolutionary, and even that is not all that obvious, because it’s not the way the Gospels are trying to portray him. I simply don’t see that there are any grounds for assuming that the pagans would have regarded Christ as wicked, except on the basis that he had been crucified, and crucifixion is for criminals, particularly the lowest of the low.

You say you don’t want to lose the distinction. What I don’t want is for you to make an unfounded distinction and somehow think you can use it to further some contention that doesn’t have a leg to stand on. This has been one of my complaints all along, that you, or the others, come up with some kind of speculative claim and then proceed to argue as though it’s something more than speculation, as though you can securely base an argument on it. Such as:

And there’s your unfounded distinction based on speculation: that it’s not “worshiping a crucified man� but “worshiping a wicked man� with the desired implication that Felix means, oh yes we would certainly understand if you condemned us for worshiping a wicked man, but you see, he wasn’t wicked; he may have been crucified, but it was unjustly, he was innocent, not wicked. Again. This is all word games. None of that is there in the text. It’s simply a desperate attempt to try to put a twist on things so that you end up with some orthodox meaning. And you apply something to one element, but not to any of the others. By your reasoning, there would be just as much justification for putting a spin on all the other elements along the same lines: Yes, we would understand if you condemn us for worshiping genitals, but you see, it’s really not genitals, it’s the priests’ knees; as for slaughtering an infant, yes that would be terrible, but you see, it’s not really an infant, but…a pig? A three-year old, who is no longer an “infant�? Can you not see what I’m getting at?

Because the “veiled ambiguity� can be seen as accidental. I have demonstrated that there is no reason to believe that it was intended. Because the other considerations in my analysis make it overwhelmingly probable, if not essential, that Felix only meant one choice in that ‘ambiguity’ then the other has to be rejected as not there, not intended, only a chance side-effect of what he was trying to do, which was to offer reasons for rejecting the accusation. Because of this, your claim that ambiguities can be resolved by appealing to other writers is erroneous. This is another of my complaints. If the examination of the document itself allows of only one interpretation, then all the comparisons to other writers are completely irrelevant and misleading. That’s why I’ve insisted on not accepting appeals to other writers, but to focus on the text itself under examination.

No, it is not just a question of style. What Felix has said, and the way he has said it, has been entirely determined by his outlook and his purpose. The ambiguity is a chance result of that, not a result of his “style�. And I have never said that he “shouldn’t have done it that way.� It might have been better if he had recognized that he was introducing a possible ambiguity, but I don’t really fault him for not doing so. And my arguments have indeed shown in several ways that “if he really held orthodox views on the crucified man, he wouldn’t have inserted it among the others.� I’ve demonstrated it by showing that he would have to have been an idiot not to see that he was creating the wrong impression, I’ve demonstrated it by showing that the way he has put together his responses, the “parallel treatment� aspect, the way he has made his “complementary linkage�, etc. can ONLY be the result of NOT holding orthodox views on the crucified man.

But only with your strange and unfounded twist on them. Not only a twist, but with an added element: “We don’t worship a criminal because he wasn’t a criminal.� The last half of that alleged statement isn’t there. “We don’t worship a mortal man because he wasn’t a mortal man.� The last half of that alleged statement isn’t there. And I have demonstrated how it can’t be there. When I said, in the above passage quoted by Don, that “He meant all this, even though he makes no clear statements to that effect, something he could easily have done,� these are sentiments related to the apologist viewpoint, they follow on the preceding sentences. It is the orthodox meaning that I am saying that he made no clear statement about, though he could easily have done so if that was his stance. My argument has shown that from the non-orthodox standpoint, he did make a clear statement. It can be seen when one takes into account all the features I’ve outlined in my last past; they allow only one interpretation, even if those key phrases have accidentally assumed a kind of ambiguity provided you read something into them that the text as a whole, the three observations I discussed at length, does not permit.

By the way, I call the reader’s attention to the passage from my last post which Don has quoted, and which I reproduced above. It provides a clear explanation for how these verses, which Felix intended as his reasons for why it was wrong to think Christians would worhip a crucified man and his cross, ended up being twisted by subsequent Christians into fitting, however strained, an orthodox viewpoint.

So Felix’s point here is that he condemns the Egyptians for worshiping their man because he wasn’t a real god but it would be OK for them to do so if he had been a real god?!!! (I hate smilies, but I’m really tempted to use the one banging his head against the wall!) Where, in anything in this entire document, does it suggest that Felix holds the view that it’s OK to worship a man as a god if he is really a god? Your talent for finding hidden ambiguities is here stretched to the limit. He has just stated that the pagans are crazy for thinking that Christians would worship a man (crucified, or wicked, or both?)—oh, wait, that also had an ambiguity that said it was OK to worship him as long as he wasn’t wicked, and as long as he wasn’t mortal, so I guess this means that one hidden ambiguity, which is virtually ruled out by a mountain of other interpretations of the passage, is supported by another hidden ambiguity.

And is that second hidden ambiguity even remotely supportable by anything else Felix says about the Egyptians? Not that I can see. He goes on to criticize “praising as a god� kings and princes, rather than just giving them the honor and love one would give to a good man. Does this, too, have a hidden ambiguity, that it’s OK to treat kings and princes as gods as long as they, too, are gods? Does Felix anywhere suggest that any king and prince who has ever lived has in fact been a god?

This is the perfect demonstration of how apologetic practice becomes one giant construction of one speculation after another, one strained, unlikely reading of this and that passage one after another, the whole tied together with fairy wax and invisible thread, all of it hanging from skyhooks. Everything is possible, speculation is unlimited, plain readings are forbidden and there is no such thing as a conclusive reading based on common sense. If there is some remote possible argument to be made for orthodoxy, that’s the one we go with and damn the torpedoes.

But please, don’t come to me and claim that I haven’t proven anything, or that your position is as likely as mine.

Maybe I’d better add my own “smile� here and assure Don that I really don’t hold all this against him, because I truly understand where he is coming from. I’ve been there myself, though it was long ago.

The rest of what Don has written in his latest post is more of the same (sometimes exactly more of the same), and the alleged distinction between “actual� crosses and only its “sign� I’ve dealt with at length in my website Rebuttal article, which he seems to have taken no note of. While I, too, enjoy this debate, I’ve got to parcel my time.

All the best.

EarlDoherty

One of the problems with apologetic orthodoxy is its tendency to literalism. My metaphorical “professor� was just that, a metaphor, and the “eats and wears� was intended only as a metaphor. Nor was the professor even a metaphorical representation of myself, though perhaps this is a case of one of those “accidental ambiguities.�

Metaphors are not straw men. They’re directly akin to analogies, trying to illustrate points by real-life examples which are not meant to be taken literally. But I offered it because I do think it applies to arguments that have been made here.

And I hope you will realize that I cannot reply to everything. Things slip behind us and are lost sight of. I simply don’t have the time. The points you made in previous postings I hope have been covered, even if only in general, by my last one.

GakuseiDon

Can you show where he seems to be assuming that every victim of crucifixion was wicked? The emphasis lies on wickedness, not crucifixion.

Certainly pagans didn't understand that everyone who was crucified was wicked. Lucian, writing around the same time as Felix according to Earl, wrote:

These deluded creatures, you see, have persuaded themselves that they are immortal and will live forever, which explains the contempt of death and willing self-sacrifice so common among them. It was impressed on them too by their lawgiver that from the moment they are converted, deny the gods of Greece, worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers. They take his instructions completely on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods and hold them in common ownership.

Others, like Celsus, had some idea of the Gospel Christ but still accused Christ of sorcery. I think these concepts form the background that needs to be taken into consideration here.

But Felix DOES say this!:

For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal [wicked man] and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

Let's turn this into a direct attack on Christ, which I think we are all agreed that the "wicked man" is a reference to:

For in that you believe that Christ is a wicked man, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a wicked man deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God.

Is this a denial of innocence, in your opinion? I can only see it as being perfectly compatible with orthodoxy. I think that all you are left with is "he should have expressed it a different way". But that doesn't make it incompatible with orthodoxy.

Well, this goes to "Felix should have said THIS", which is what Earl does so well. At the base, Felix DOES say the man was innocent. As Armstrong notes, the docrine of salvation wasn't formalized until around the fourth century.

The fact is, Felix DOES declare the man to be innocent. Remember, we are assuming that Felix is aware of an "orthodox Christianity" that regarded the crucified man as innocent and a god.

You mean, at a time when people were compiling long lists of heretical beliefs, they would have been as willing to read orthodox beliefs as we today? I don't think so. Besides, Earl presents it as an apologetic of a "Logos" Christianity. Felix is clearly speaking for a group of Christians, not just himself.

I'll broaden this, then. Earl has said that Felix had no Jesus Christ in mind, only a worship of a Logos (which Felix also doesn't really mention). What evidence is there that any heresiologists wrote about second century Christian heresies that had no Jesus Christ at all?

Please show me where Felix is targetting "crucified man" over "wicked man". or where he distances himself from the notion that any crucified victim is worthy of worship.

I won't get a chance to respond to other posts, I'm afraid. I'll work on getting a full summary of what I think is going on out in the next day or so.